An interventional study of Closed-label nocebo conditioning and Closed-label counterconditioning in Pain and Hyperalgesia, sponsored by Leiden University. Completed at 1 site in Netherlands. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 35 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-08-25.
Sponsored by Leiden University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science
Nocebo effects are known to adversely affect the experience of various physical symptoms, such as pain and itch. Nocebo effects can be induced by associative learning mechanisms of classical conditioning. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that counterconditioning can successfully reduce nocebo effects, and to a larger extent than mere extinction, which suggests counterconditioning can be an innovative method for desensitization of symptoms. When using such procedures in clinical practice, deception of patients should be avoided as much as possible. The use of open-label procedures could provide a promising alternative. While previous studies have already shown that open-label placebos are effective, the effects of open-label counterconditioning and closed-label counterconditioning are not extensively investigated in comparison to other strategies, such as extinction, and not yet compared amongst each other. Before implementing such a procedure in clinical practice, it would be relevant to get an insight in the efficacy of both open- and closed-label counterconditioning in healthy participants as compared to extinction and to investigate whether open-label counterconditioning can be equally effective as closed-label counterconditioning. Furthermore, it would be relevant to study the induction and reduction of nocebo effects using a pain modality that mimics the type of pain that people suffering from several chronic pain conditions experience, such as pressure pain. The main aim of the current study is to investigate whether open- and closed-label counterconditioning are more effective in reducing nocebo effects than extinction. To this aim, it will be investigated whether open- and closed-label counterconditioning lead to stronger reductions in nocebo effects on pressure pain than (closed-label) extinction, and whether all three successfully reduce nocebo effects. Finally, it will be tested whether open- and closed label counterconditioning are comparable in effectivity.
The primary objective of the study is to investigate whether open- and closed-label counterconditioning are more effective in reducing nocebo effects than extinction.
The experimental (open- and closed-label counterconditioning) and control (extinction) groups will be compared on the change in the nocebo effect from before to after counterconditioning. The nocebo effect is defined as the mean difference in self-reported pain ratings (on a numeric rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable))during all experimental trials and control trials in the test phase of nocebo conditioning and the test phase of counterconditioning/extinction. The reduction of the nocebo effect will be determined by calculating the mean difference between the nocebo effect after conditioning and after counterconditioning/extinction. It is expected that participants in both counterconditioning groups will show a larger reduction of the nocebo effect than participants in the extinction group. A one-way ANOVA will be conducted, to examine the main effect of group on the amount of change in nocebo effects. Then, post-hoc analyses will be conducted after the primary analysis, to test for differences between the three forms of nocebo reduction.
Secondary, it will be tested whether all three procedures (open- and closed-label counterconditioning and extinction) lead to a significant reduction of the nocebo effect, by comparing the amount of reduction to test value 0. It is hypothesized that all groups show a significant reduction.
Finally, it will be investigated whether open- and closed-label counterconditioning procedures are comparable in terms of their ability to reduce nocebo effects on pressure pain. Both groups are expected to be comparable in efficacy of reducing the nocebo effect.
10,054 studies on the registry are indexed under Pain; 1,649 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 69 is close to the median of 66 across 8,493 interventional studies indexed under Pain.
Browse Pain studies →Leiden University is the lead sponsor of 19 studies on the registry; 3 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
The American Psychiatric Association’s manual of mental health diagnoses. DSM-5 (2013, revised as DSM-5-TR in 2022) replaced DSM-IV, and some studies still name the older edition. “Meets DSM criteria for …” means diagnosed by that edition’s diagnostic criteria, usually by a clinician in an interview.
DSM diagnostic criteria
The American Psychiatric Association’s manual of mental health diagnoses. DSM-5 (2013, revised as DSM-5-TR in 2022) replaced DSM-IV, and some studies still name the older edition. “Meets DSM criteria for …” means diagnosed by that edition’s diagnostic criteria, usually by a clinician in an interview.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Closed-label conditioning followed by open-label counterconditioning, using moderately painful stimuli (during conditioning) and non-painful stimuli (during counterconditioning), combined with closed-label nocebo suggestions and open-label nocebo reduction suggestions
Behavioral: Closed-label nocebo conditioning · Behavioral: Open-label counterconditioning
Closed-label conditioning followed by closed-label counterconditioning, using moderately painful stimuli (during conditioning) and non-painful stimuli (during counterconditioning), combined with closed-label nocebo suggestions and closed-label nocebo reduction suggestions
Behavioral: Closed-label nocebo conditioning · Behavioral: Closed-label counterconditioning
Closed-label conditioning followed by closed-label extinction, using moderately painful stimuli (during conditioning) and slightly-painful stimuli (during extinction), combined with closed-label nocebo suggestions during conditioning and no/neutral suggestions during extinction
Behavioral: Closed-label nocebo conditioning · Behavioral: Closed-label extinction
Conditioning consists of a learning and test phase. In the learning phase, a message indicating the sham activation of a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) device (CS) will be repeatedly paired with a moderate intensity pressure pain stimulus, whereas a message indicating the deactivation of the sham device will be repeatedly paired with a slightly painful pressure pain stimulus. Participants will be given a verbal suggestion in line with the conditioning procedure (i.e. activation of the device will increase their pain). The testing phase is similar to the learning phase, but a slight pressure pain intensity is used for all trials, to test for a nocebo effect (i.e. to test whether participants score "TENS on" trials as more painful than "TENS off" trials).
Counterconditioning consists of a learning and test phase. In the learning phase, a message indicating the sham activation of the TENS device (CS) is now repeatedly paired with a non-painful intensity pressure pain stimulus, whereas a message indicating the sham deactivation of the TENS device will be repeatedly paired with a slightly painful pressure pain stimulus. Participants will be given a verbal suggestion in line with the counterconditioning procedure (i.e. activation of the device will reduce their pain). The testing phase is similar to the learning phase, but a slight pressure pain intensity is used for all trials, to test whether the nocebo effect is successfully reduced (i.e. to test whether participants no longer score "TENS on" trials as more painful than "TENS off" trials or even score "TENS on" trials as less painful).
Counterconditioning consists of a learning and test phase. In the learning phase, a message indicating the sham activation of the TENS device (CS) is now repeatedly paired with a non-painful intensity pressure pain stimulus, whereas a message indicating the sham deactivation of the TENS device will be repeatedly paired with a slightly painful pressure pain stimulus. Participants will be given a open-label verbal suggestions in line with the counterconditioning procedure (i.e. they are told counterconditioning will be used to reduce nocebo effects and they are told the device is sham, but that their pain will still be influenced because of the placebo effect). The testing phase is similar to the learning phase, but a slight pressure pain intensity is used for all trials, to test whether the nocebo effect is successfully reduced (i.e. to test whether participants no longer score "TENS on" trials as more painful than "TENS off" trials or even score "TENS on" trials as less painful).
Extinction consists of a learning and test phase. In the learning phase, slightly painful stimuli are used for all trials. During the testing phase, again a slight pressure pain intensity is used for all trials, to test whether the nocebo effect is successfully reduced (i.e. to test whether participants no longer score "TENS on" trials as more painful than "TENS off" trials).
Nocebo reduction; group comparison
The change in nocebo effects from after nocebo conditioning (part 1) to after either form of counterconditioning or extinction (part 2) will be compared between groups. The nocebo effect is defined as the difference between the pain scored during experimental trials (on a 0-10 NRS) and during control trials (same NRS). The change is calculated by subtracting the nocebo effect after counterconditioning from the nocebo effect after nocebo conditioning.
Time frame: On the testing day; testing phase of nocebo induction and reduction
Nocebo reduction
For all three groups separately, it will be tested whether the nocebo effect is significantly reduced from test phase of nocebo conditioning to the test phase of either form of counterconditioning or extinction. The nocebo effect is defined as the difference between the pain scored during experimental trials (on a 0-10 NRS) and during control trials (same NRS). Nocebo reduction is calculated by subtracting the nocebo effect after counterconditioning from the nocebo effect after nocebo conditioning. For all groups separately, the amount of reduction will be compared to test value 0.
Time frame: On the testing day; testing phase of nocebo induction and reduction
Nocebo reduction; equivalence of the two forms of counterconditioning
It will be tested whether the change in nocebo effects from the test phase of conditioning to the test phase of counterconditioning in the open- and closed-label groups is comparable. The nocebo effect is defined as the difference between the pain scored during experimental trials (on 0-10 NRS) and during control trials (same NRS). The change is calculated by subtracting the nocebo effects after counterconditioning from the nocebo effect after nocebo conditioning.
Time frame: On the testing day; testing phase of nocebo induction and reduction
Plan to share: Yes — All data are collected pseudonymised; consent forms are the only sources containing personal data and will not be shared, but are monitored by the department's Data Monitor.
Supporting information: Statistical analysis plan, Analytic code
Time frame: Data will become available immediately after study publication and will be retained for 15 years.
Access criteria: Data can be shared with scientists in relevant fields for the purpose of future studies such as replication or meta-analysis (or with designated persons for monitoring purposes).
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Leiden University